Leisure: Definitions, Trends, and Policy Implications

Economic theories predict that with modernity and with the increase in standards of living, individuals will aspire for more leisure. However, the results of empirical studies which examined period trends in leisure time across developed countries do not confirm this presumption. The current study asks: If changes in leisure stem from ideational changes among different generations, will trends in leisure look different if examined across cohorts, or if measured differently? By integrating theoretical definitions of leisure based on literatures in economics, sociology, and psychology, this research derives three main macro-level empirical measures of leisure from various sources. These measures are used to analyze the contribution of population turnover to changes in the quantity of leisure, in developed countries, using linear regression decomposition method. Our results show an almost unequivocal increase in leisure across cohorts, across 159 country-periods, suggesting that new policies supporting domestic consumption are warranted.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic €32.70 /Month

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (France)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Similar content being viewed by others

Leisure and Consumer Behavior: A “Social Indicators” Update

Chapter © 2015

Peter Nijkamp Recommends “The False Duality of Work and Leisure” by Joy E. Beatty and William R. Torbert

Chapter © 2019

Introduction to the Palgrave Handbook of Leisure Theory

Chapter © 2017

Notes

Macro-level indicators are provided by age groups according to the following: US time-use data—15–24, 25–34, 35–44, 45–54, 55–64, 65–74; Eurostat’s time-use data—15–19, 20–24, 25–44, 45–64, 65–74; US Expenditures data—15–24, 25–34, 35–44, 45–54, 55–64, 65–74, 75–84; Eurostat’s expenditures data—14–29, 30–44, 45–59, 60–74.

The percent of change explained by cohort replacement is calculated by dividing the cohort replacement effect by the total expected change.

The percent recovered due to cohort replacement is calculated by dividing the cohort replacement effect by the inverse value of the “within cohort change.”.

References

Acknowledgements

I gratefully acknowledge the excellent comments and advices received from Barbara S. Okun (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Anat Gofen (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Brienna Perelli-Harris (University of Southampton), and Michaela Kreyenfeld (Hertie School of Governance) at the early stages of this research. I also gratefully acknowledge the excellent research assistance of Alon Pertzikovitz.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, Demographic Studies, The Federmann School of Public Policy and Government, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel Liat Raz-Yurovich
  1. Liat Raz-Yurovich